2011 (2) TMI 1613 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Challenge to the arbitral award u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
2. Limitation period for filing the application u/s 34.
3. Presumption of service of the arbitral award.

Summary:

1. Challenge to the arbitral award u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996:
The Petitioner, New Globe Transport Company, moved a petition u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, challenging the arbitral award dated 5th August, 2008, passed by the learned arbitrator. The Petitioner contended that they were unaware of the award until they received a letter dated 30th June, 2010, on 9th July, 2010, which enclosed a copy of the award. The Petitioner argued that the award was never served upon them and thus the limitation period should start from 9th July, 2010.

2. Limitation period for filing the application u/s 34:
The Court noted that the application was prima facie barred by limitation as the award was made and published on 5th August, 2008. The Petitioner argued that the limitation period should start from the date they received the letter on 9th July, 2010. The Respondent contended that the award was sent by registered post with acknowledgment due on 8th August, 2008, and returned with the postal endorsement 'Not Claimed', which should be considered as good service, thus starting the limitation period from that date.

3. Presumption of service of the arbitral award:
The Court examined whether the postal endorsement 'Not Claimed' constituted good service. The Respondent cited various legal provisions and judgments to support their claim that the presumption of service is in their favor. The Court referred to the General Clauses Act and relevant case law, including the Supreme Court's decision in C.C. Alavi Haji v. Palapetty Muhammed, which held that service of notice is deemed to have been effected unless the sendee proves otherwise.

Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the postal endorsement 'Not Claimed' amounted to good service and the award was deemed to have been served on 8th August, 2008. Consequently, the petition filed by the Petitioner was barred by limitation u/s 34(3) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, and was dismissed.